The Alabama Supreme Court has resolved a complex dispute involving judicial authority in domestic violence cases, dismissing Judge Linda F. Coats's appeal and partially dismissing a related appeal by Jordan Ray Henshaw in consolidated cases decided February 20, 2026.
The case originated when Mikaela Williams filed a petition for protection from abuse against her boyfriend, Jordan Ray Henshaw, on March 10, 2025, in Madison Circuit Court under Alabama's Protection from Abuse Act. Judge Coats subsequently entered a protection-from-abuse order in Williams's favor.
The dispute escalated when the Madison Circuit Court issued a writ of mandamus against Judge Coats, ordering her to vacate a portion of the protection order she had entered. A mandamus writ is an extraordinary legal remedy that compels a public official to perform a specific duty when they have failed to do so.
Both Judge Coats and Henshaw separately appealed the Madison Circuit Court's mandamus order, leading to the consolidation of cases SC-2025-0493 and SC-2025-0535 before the Alabama Supreme Court. The appeals challenged different aspects of the same underlying mandamus ruling.
The Madison Circuit Court's mandamus order also addressed a related criminal matter involving Judge Patricia D. Demos. The circuit court issued a separate writ of mandamus requiring Judge Demos to vacate her order dismissing a domestic-abuse charge against Henshaw that stemmed from the same incident that prompted Williams's protection-from-abuse petition.
Justice Mendheim, writing for the Alabama Supreme Court, announced the court's decision to dismiss Judge Coats's appeal entirely. The dismissal suggests the high court found no grounds to review the mandamus order against Judge Coats or determined the appeal lacked merit on procedural or substantive grounds.
Regarding Henshaw's appeal, the Supreme Court took a bifurcated approach. The court dismissed part of Henshaw's appeal while transferring the remainder to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. This transfer indicates that portions of Henshaw's challenge involve criminal law matters that fall under the specialized jurisdiction of the criminal appeals court.
The case highlights the complex interplay between civil protection orders and criminal charges in domestic violence cases. When the same incident generates both a civil protection-from-abuse petition and criminal charges, multiple judges may become involved, sometimes leading to conflicting orders or interpretations of the law.
Protection-from-abuse orders serve as crucial tools for domestic violence victims, providing immediate legal protection while criminal cases proceed through the courts. Alabama's Protection from Abuse Act allows victims to seek emergency relief without waiting for criminal prosecution outcomes.
The use of mandamus writs against sitting judges represents an extraordinary judicial remedy reserved for cases where a judge has clearly exceeded their authority or failed to perform a mandatory duty. Such writs are relatively rare and indicate serious concerns about judicial conduct or legal interpretation.
The dismissal of Judge Coats's appeal means the original mandamus order against her stands, requiring her to vacate the contested portion of the protection order. The specific nature of the problematic provision in Judge Coats's order was not detailed in the available court documents.
For Henshaw, the partial dismissal and transfer of his appeal means different aspects of his challenge will receive separate consideration. The transferred portion will be reviewed by judges with specialized expertise in criminal law matters.
This case underscores the importance of proper coordination between civil and criminal proceedings in domestic violence cases. When multiple courts handle related matters involving the same parties and incidents, clear communication and adherence to jurisdictional boundaries become essential to avoid conflicting orders.
The Alabama Supreme Court's decision also reflects the court's careful attention to jurisdictional issues, demonstrated by its transfer of criminal-related appeals to the appropriate specialized court rather than attempting to resolve all matters within its own jurisdiction.
The case serves as a reminder that judicial decisions, even at the trial court level, remain subject to review through established appellate processes. However, the dismissal of Judge Coats's appeal also illustrates that not all judicial challenges will succeed on appeal.
As domestic violence cases continue to present complex legal challenges involving both civil protection and criminal enforcement, this decision may provide guidance for future cases involving similar jurisdictional and procedural questions. The Alabama Supreme Court's handling of these consolidated appeals demonstrates the judiciary's commitment to ensuring proper legal procedures while maintaining respect for trial court authority within appropriate bounds.